Skip to main content

About your Search

20120930
20121008
SPONSOR
STATION
CSPAN 4
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
CSPAN
Oct 5, 2012 8:00pm EDT
limits on your care. or jack up your premiums without reason. or drop your coverage when you need it most. they can no longer discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. and soon they will no longer be able to deny you coverage based on pre-existing conditions like breast cancer or charge you more for the same care just because you're a woman. this law has already allowed nearly seven million young adults under the age of 26 to sign up and stay on their parents' health care plan. it's already saved millions of seniors on medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription medicine. and millions of americans have actually gotten a rebate from their insurance company if that company -- you got one? [applause] i wanted to say -- i mean, she was a supporter. but i didn't know about -- [laughter] you get a rebate if the insurance company spent too much on demitch costs and c.e.o. -- administrative costs on -- and c.e.o. bonuses. this health care has secured new access to preventative care like mammograms and cancer screening was no co-pay, no deductible, no out-of-pocket costs f
CSPAN
Oct 1, 2012 10:00am EDT
clause violates the defense of mayor jack -- or the defense of marriage at-the people protection clause because there is no rational basis for it does not pass scrutiny. the idea of which level of scrutiny it must pass is a question. but they are happy to argue both. this case is interesting because justice kagen was involved at the district court level during her confirmation level where it came out. her office had been involved in the internal discussion of the strategy of the case, so she will be recused in that case. that would make a real wrinkle in the case. the district found that the first circuit also found that the defense of marriage act was unconstitutional. they ruled on able protection clause and ended up creating a new level of scrutiny. it is a heightened but not officially heightened scrutiny which would be the source of some concern by the supreme court, figuring out which level of scrutiny is appropriate to be used here. this is the only one that has an appellate decision being reviewed. that petition was ready for consideration at the first conference. but they ended
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)